I agree that all these numbers are very debatable. Well, in recent history, it was practiced by the Clinton administration. But IMHO common sense says: don't treat a country's budget like that of a household. The EU is giving us plenty of present day examples of why austerity in a contraction leads to more contraction. By far, the biggest contributor to the recent deficit was loss of revenue due to contraction, and actually, the US deficit is shrinking as we speak as the economy continues to add jobs. Clinton didn't get a surplus due to austerity measures, it was due to an economic boom. Common sense says we should have continued to pay down the debt at that time when we could have without causing a contraction.Maybe if reducing the deficit was practiced at any time in the United States then we could talk about 'if' and 'when' but I say better late than never.
We're close to on the same page. I agree that our currently high deficit is due to revenue vs expenditures which have grown wildly out of balance in the recession. And I agree that Clinton's budget surplus was due to economic growth, but Clinton also increased taxes and reduced spending in social welfare programs - austerity. And even then, it was only 3 years before Bush screwed it up.